I liked Tom Brady's quote from his press conference about tall trees catching the most wind. BB will always be over-scrutinized because he is still the coaching king of the NFL. I'm sure some will call me a homer for saying that, but it is simply the truth. Few teams are as scrutinized as the Pats, and that's the byproduct of being the first NFL dynasty in the internet era.

I liked Tom Brady's quote from his press conference about tall trees catching the most wind. BB will always be over-scrutinized because he is still the coaching king of the NFL. I'm sure some will call me a homer for saying that, but it is simply the truth. Few teams are as scrutinized as the Pats, and that's the byproduct of being the first NFL dynasty in the internet era.

Click to expand...

Who the media chooses to like or dislike is the ultimate factor. If they like you, they will overlook things and/or give you the benefit of the doubt on other things. If they dislike you then anything open to interpretation will be looked at with a scornful eye. Objectivity and (most)media simply are opposite entities.

This read was very good and insightful. I happened to be watching this game when it happened and my first thought was WTF! I believe that this call got over looked by the national media because Ben R bailed the team out. We lost after 4 & 2, so BB was thrown under the bus. I've actually switched to the NFL Network's pre-game coverage (I know Marshall Faulk isn't much better) because I CAN NOT handle Tom Jackson talking sh*t about our team!

I don't think he "talks nice" more than most coaches. He is straight-forward and respectful.

Even when asked why he went for the on-sides, his explanation was very direct and understandable, not arrogant.
"We had 30 minutes of evidence there to show we could drive the ball on them," Tomlin said. "We also had 30 minutes of evidence that they could drive the ball on us. That's why we took the risk when we did."
That is much more satisfying to hear than, "I thought it gave us the best chance to win."

Lastly, I thought Tomlin made a stupid call, but the game ended exactly like one may have expected. Perhaps Tomlin was hoping his D could hold them to 3? Unfortunately for him, GB got 7, but left enough time on the clock for Big Ben to do his thing. The shorter field probably contributed to GB being only able to take off so much time before handing the ball back.

I don't think he "talks nice" more than most coaches. He is straight-forward and respectful.

Click to expand...

He cozies up to the press...Maybe that's it..Certainly the press loves some coaches because they get their questions, pat answers and then they can sit on their behinds and do no work. The press hates BB and this is an example of how it really depends on who is doing what...BUT I do agree that winning is the ultimate thing. I still think Tomlin wouldn't have been savaged all that much if the Steelers had lost. Double standard big time.

maybe i am just seeing this all differently but I thought that if the 4th and 2 call worked out, and the Pats were able to ice the game after the fresh set of downs, the media would point to the decision by BB as another incredibly innovative and brilliant move. Its all about wins and losses and the media ultimately hinges on that.

In other examples, lets reverse history for a moment. Here are the headlines:

"Vrabel drops 4th down TD attempt, Belichick pays for not playing either 1st round TE on roster"

See, the point is, the media usually just gravitates towards winning. When Belichick does things and the Pats win, he is given the respect he deserves. At worst, he is called "the best coach of the last 20 years in the NFL" and at best he is called "the best coach in the history of professional sports". Even within that wide range of praise, the lower end of the spectrum is still respectable.

Fact is the Steelers won yesterday. So what is there to complain about? I mean, when the Pats won on the first superbowl with a defense which was choking just as bad as the most two Indy collapses (07 playoffs, 09). Lets examine - just a bad - 2 4th quarter touchdown - horrible sieve prevent defense - no pass rush - opposing team marches down and scores at will. But in the first game, the Pats won (the SB).No body every talks about how this team almost blew a 2 TD lead.

Now in the first SB, we heard "greatest game ever" and in the two Indy losses we heard all the complaints (not to be re-lived here). But it was the exact same defense and the exact same thing happened.

if the pats would have got the 4-2 every one would have said it was the greatest call by a coach in NFL history

Click to expand...

agreed, but there's still an element of BB hatred out there so they draw out any negative story they can get their hands on when it comes to him. We're still hearing about 4th and 2. Granted much of the BB hatred comes from the local agenda-driven weenies that we have to put up with around here. The same guys always come running to the defense of Francona whenever a anyone criticizes him so it is a personal thing.

If you listen to the Felger and Mazz show, its rare you hear a positive analysis of BB. You'd think we have the biggest idiot that has ever coached the game if you take them seriously. I know I shouldn't even listen to them but the Big Show get annoying for other reasons and I need my sports fix.

True, but they did not win because of the decision; in fact, they should have lost solely because of the decision to go for the onside kick.

Yes, I completely understand that there has been less scrutiny because the Steelers won, but there's still a very large double standard in the way the media focused (or in Tomlin's case, ignored) the two events. The only one that had anything to say about Tomlin's decision was the announcer (Troy Aikman as I recall) during the game.

I completely agree with the idea that, if you win, risky or questionable coaching decisions that might have jeopardized that victory get downplayed. On the flip side, if you gamble and lose, that decision will be scrutinized.

The difference in the reaction to Belichick's 4th and 2 decision and the Tomlin's onside kick is not just that the Steelers ultimately won even though Tomlin's gamble failed. It's that people assert that Belichick's decision would have been wrong even if it worked (see the links here collected by Metaphors).

To echo a point made a couple of times in this thread, I don't think you would have seen the "It was the wrong decision, win or lose" theme as part of the criticism if the Steelers had lost. That's the agenda or double standard we see Patriots-related matters.

I don't think Tomlin or Belichick give a rat's patootie what the media thinks or says. That's because the media is incapable of understanding why either coach does what they do.

For the media, the actual coaching decision and rationale is meaningless. All that counts is if they win. If they won, and the Steelers did even though the gambit itself failed (gave up 7 points as a direct result), then they (the media) don't care.

BB is a genius for taking an intentional safety and a maroon for going for it on fourth and 2. For me, BB's only fourth and 2 mistake was taking a timeout at 2:08 because then they couldn't challenge the Faulk bobble call. But to say going for it on fourth and 2 was a bad decision because it didn't work, and saying it was good decision if it did is illogical. If I look both ways before crossing Rte 1 and get hit by a car, and my friend puts on a blindfold and run willy nilly on Rte One and somehow doesn't get hit, does that mean it is a bad idea to look before crossing Rte 1 and a good idea to run across blindfolded?

I'll bet if the Redskins had scored a TD with their weird FG shift and then won the game, then Zorn would be a reincarnation of Lombardi, at least according to the 'analysts.'